6 ms·

I think they did this because lots of publishers show paywalls to people but still want their content indexed by Google. In other words, they want their cake an

I think they did this because lots of publishers show paywalls to people but still want their content indexed by Google. In other words, they want their cake and eat it too!

amadeuspagel 3y ago
And of course many of these publishers are politically powerful, and are the trusted sources that google wants to promote over random blogs.
- colordrops 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - ithkuil 3y ago
    Do you think there exists only one class of people with money and that they all have a unified narrative to feed us with?
    - colordrops 3y ago
      No, and my statement doesn't necessarily imply that.
      - ithkuil 3y ago
        ok; the use of the singular threw me off. Another (related) question: do you think there are many points of view which aren't also subscribed (or exploited) by one or more moneyed classes?
        yukkuri 3y ago
        Just yell "NOT ALL RICH PEOPLE" and be done with it, bro.
        ithkuil 3y ago
        That's not what I'm saying. My intent is not to defend rich people. Yes obviously most of them don't spend their time controlling the media but instead spend time showing off on their yachts. My point is something else: I don't but the idea that there are two factions, the rich and the poor, and that all rich people have the same interests and thus are allies and that all poor people have the same interests and are allied (or so they should). Sure, this view is partially grounded in realty and that's why Marx did come up with it and it's why it stuck to this day as sensible to so many people. But I don't think it's true. I think it oversimplifies reality to the point that a spherical cow in comparison is anatomically accurate. But it's worse than just being wrong. It actively stifles conversation. Any attempt to have a nuanced conversation about these topics ultimately resolves in an accusation of "you're defending the rich, just admit it". That's what turns a idea into an ideology. Ideologies are ideas with built-in self-defense mechanisms.
        colordrops 3y ago
        I don't follow your question. What is your implication? Just come out and say it.
        ithkuil 3y ago
        Sure I have my viewpoint. But I'm also genuinely interested in your viewpoint. My viewpoint is that I don't buy the idea that there is a group (or groups) of people that have both the means (money) and the ideas they made up themselves and they use the money to push the ideas to the passive masses who are then brainwashed by these rich people. I think the masses produce the ideas. Those ideas are then selected and amplified by all sorts of people leveraging all sorts of means driven by all sorts of motives. In fact there are plenty of examples of populist leaders that are not rich. The fact that the US has the cult of the millionaire sometimes obfuscates that fact; for some reason for populist leaders in the US to raise they have to be millionaire (or pretend to be) to begin with. My point is that, sure, the moneyed class does play a role, but reality is much more complex than that and I don't really buy the idea that the world is "controlled" by a bunch of "supermen" who are both incredibly wealthy and also incredibly intelligent and play 4d chess. I'm not sure you believe that, that's why I wanted to ask a question instead of implying anything for your position. But since you asked. EDIT: typos
        colordrops 3y ago
        > I think the masses produce the ideas. Those ideas are then selected and amplified by all sorts of people leveraging all sorts of means driven by all sorts of motives. > My point is that, sure, the moneyed class does play a role, but reality is much more complex than that and I don't really buy the idea that the world is "controlled" by a bunch of "supermen" who are both incredibly wealthy and also incredibly intelligent and play 4d chess These don't contradict what I said at all. You are arguing with a straw man.
        ithkuil 3y ago
        That's why I asked you a question instead of implying anything but you forced me to just randomly speak my mind. I have no idea what you think
- travoc 3y ago
  Well, they all show Google ads.
  - joe_the_user 3y ago
    You'd think they could make fine money as neutral brokers since everyone served their ads and for a long period they did make money as semi-neutral brokers. But since, IDK, 2019 they have become more and more garbage. This is broadly part of the concentration of wealth and power you see everywhere else but I don't know the specifics but you can see the result.
  - amadeuspagel 3y ago
    Not true for the NYT, which has its own ad system.
franze 3y ago
there is a special spec for google by that https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/structured-data/paywalled-content https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/structu... basically cloaking + json-ld markup
- codetrotter 3y ago
  I wonder if Google trains its AI on paywalled data, that other scrapers don’t have access to but which those paywalled sites give full access for the Google bot to.

I think they did this because lots of publishers show paywalls to people but still want their content indexed by Google. In other words, they want their cake and eat it too!

amadeuspagel 3y ago

And of course many of these publishers are politically powerful, and are the trusted sources that google wants to promote over random blogs.

colordrops 3y ago
[flagged]
- ithkuil 3y ago
  Do you think there exists only one class of people with money and that they all have a unified narrative to feed us with?
  - colordrops 3y ago
    No, and my statement doesn't necessarily imply that.
    - ithkuil 3y ago
      ok; the use of the singular threw me off. Another (related) question: do you think there are many points of view which aren't also subscribed (or exploited) by one or more moneyed classes?
      - yukkuri 3y ago
        Just yell "NOT ALL RICH PEOPLE" and be done with it, bro.
        ithkuil 3y ago
        That's not what I'm saying. My intent is not to defend rich people. Yes obviously most of them don't spend their time controlling the media but instead spend time showing off on their yachts. My point is something else: I don't but the idea that there are two factions, the rich and the poor, and that all rich people have the same interests and thus are allies and that all poor people have the same interests and are allied (or so they should). Sure, this view is partially grounded in realty and that's why Marx did come up with it and it's why it stuck to this day as sensible to so many people. But I don't think it's true. I think it oversimplifies reality to the point that a spherical cow in comparison is anatomically accurate. But it's worse than just being wrong. It actively stifles conversation. Any attempt to have a nuanced conversation about these topics ultimately resolves in an accusation of "you're defending the rich, just admit it". That's what turns a idea into an ideology. Ideologies are ideas with built-in self-defense mechanisms.
      - colordrops 3y ago
        I don't follow your question. What is your implication? Just come out and say it.
        ithkuil 3y ago
        Sure I have my viewpoint. But I'm also genuinely interested in your viewpoint. My viewpoint is that I don't buy the idea that there is a group (or groups) of people that have both the means (money) and the ideas they made up themselves and they use the money to push the ideas to the passive masses who are then brainwashed by these rich people. I think the masses produce the ideas. Those ideas are then selected and amplified by all sorts of people leveraging all sorts of means driven by all sorts of motives. In fact there are plenty of examples of populist leaders that are not rich. The fact that the US has the cult of the millionaire sometimes obfuscates that fact; for some reason for populist leaders in the US to raise they have to be millionaire (or pretend to be) to begin with. My point is that, sure, the moneyed class does play a role, but reality is much more complex than that and I don't really buy the idea that the world is "controlled" by a bunch of "supermen" who are both incredibly wealthy and also incredibly intelligent and play 4d chess. I'm not sure you believe that, that's why I wanted to ask a question instead of implying anything for your position. But since you asked. EDIT: typos
        colordrops 3y ago
        > I think the masses produce the ideas. Those ideas are then selected and amplified by all sorts of people leveraging all sorts of means driven by all sorts of motives. > My point is that, sure, the moneyed class does play a role, but reality is much more complex than that and I don't really buy the idea that the world is "controlled" by a bunch of "supermen" who are both incredibly wealthy and also incredibly intelligent and play 4d chess These don't contradict what I said at all. You are arguing with a straw man.
        ithkuil 3y ago
        That's why I asked you a question instead of implying anything but you forced me to just randomly speak my mind. I have no idea what you think
travoc 3y ago
Well, they all show Google ads.
- joe_the_user 3y ago
  You'd think they could make fine money as neutral brokers since everyone served their ads and for a long period they did make money as semi-neutral brokers. But since, IDK, 2019 they have become more and more garbage. This is broadly part of the concentration of wealth and power you see everywhere else but I don't know the specifics but you can see the result.
- amadeuspagel 3y ago
  Not true for the NYT, which has its own ad system.

franze 3y ago

there is a special spec for google by that https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/structured-data/paywalled-content https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/structu... basically cloaking + json-ld markup

codetrotter 3y ago
I wonder if Google trains its AI on paywalled data, that other scrapers don’t have access to but which those paywalled sites give full access for the Google bot to.